Interpretation
The finding of our meta-analysis seems to contradict the previous
meta-analysis,12 which was performed to deny the
impact of lubricant gel on the duration of second-stage labor. The
previous meta-analysis included three RCTs with 512 women for analysis,
which also included in our study, and revealed that vaginal application
of lubricant gel during labor did not significantly reduce the duration
of the second-stage of labor in pregnant women (MD -7.11 minutes, 95%
CI -15.60 to 1.38). Our analysis included seven RCTs with 1332 women for
analysis, and suggested that pregnant women in obstetric gel group had a
shorter duration of the second-stage labor (MD -16.9 minutes, 95%CI
-27.03 to -6.78). Compared with previous meta-analysis, we included
other four recent RCTs, with the added statistical power of having 892
women, the present meta-analysis suggested that obstetric gel shortened
the duration of the second-stage labor. The previous meta-analysis
focused only on the effect of gel on the duration of the second-stage
labor. Besides this outcome, our meta-analysis also focused on other
important outcomes such as perineal trauma, postpartum hemorrhage and
Apgar score. Our analysis suggested that use of obstetric gel during
vaginal delivery did not increase the risk of postpartum hemorrhage and
neonatal asphyxia. In addition, finding from our meta-analysis showed
that liquid wax had a positive effect on reducing perineal trauma, which
was simple and practical and had no adverse to the women and their
newborn.26, 29